This is why I caution people not to appeal to men's decency when discussing misogyny by asking, what if that was your sister? Not just because it seems to require a personal attachment to care about the abuse and suffering of another, but it ignores this moral dichotomy. The first thought in the mind of many men is, "But my sister wouldnt be in that situation." Logic goes like this: My sister is a good woman. What this other women or girl has done makes her a bad woman and therefore not deserving of care." We see it in DV situations, in sexual assault cases, in the discussion of the Epstein files. Listening to right wing spin take the position of laying blame at the feet of the minors made me enraged, "It's not like they were 8." and "She was old enough to no what she was doing." Notice how that argument only comes up when we want to shame a child who was a victim and not when discussing whether they can consent to abortion or should be forced into pregnancy.
When I read this all I could think of was the movie "The Road to Wellville". It is supposed to be about the Kellog dynasty and I suppose it is, minimally. It is really about repressed sexual desire in both men and women. Almost died when the main female character went to a doctor for a womb massage and at long last experienced an organ. Hilarious movie if you like that kind of thing.
"Ladies, you heard it hear, if a man doesn’t think your orgasm is a good investment…take your toys and go home.³ He’s not worth it."
I gave this advice to the teen girls I mentored. I always made sure to explain that it is okay not have sex too. That is a decision of individual readiness and I would add if you can't comnfortably talk abouty sex you arent ready to have it. But If you do have sex the expecatation should be reciprocity. I had some former students tell me that was sound advice. .
I mean a broader, more encompassing definition of sex. One that includes what’s typically considered 'foreplay' as a form of sex, rather than treating it as something optional or easily excluded
I can't lay out the exact definition, because for every one "good sex" is different. I will say broadly that if sex doesn't involved reciprocity, orgasms for everyone (unless there's some specific kink involved), communication, and ideally occasional laughter (because sex is ridiculous at least half the time) then it's not good sex.
You can’t have good sex without communication. Everyone involved needs to be able to express “I like this, not that” or “that’s not the bit of anatomy you think it is” without feeling embarrassed or worried that their partner is going to take it as a referendum on their sexual skills
That makes me think of this scene from Boy Meets World actually:
Topanga: You wanna go home and have pooky-pook?
Cory: No, Topanga. No pooky-pook.
Topanga: Why not?
Cory: Because, you're better at pooky-pook than I am, too.
(Season 7, Episode 13)
This devolves into a much larger argument, but at it’s core it’s a fight about two people who were never mature enough for sex or marriage in the first place, leading to resentment and absolutely no good sex for anyone.
I love that term, "Boston marriage," I have one in my second novel, and was disappointed to find that the period in history I'm writing about was prior to the term. Then I realized that it was better to just show the loving relationship, and the ways they skirt male opinion or use it against them was better without the term anyway. I do love the term, though. I'm from Boston, so I take a kind of pride in it.
A fantastic read, thank you! The systems of oppression never, ever change and I appreciate every time someone reminds us of that.
Good old Madonna-Whore complex
This is why I caution people not to appeal to men's decency when discussing misogyny by asking, what if that was your sister? Not just because it seems to require a personal attachment to care about the abuse and suffering of another, but it ignores this moral dichotomy. The first thought in the mind of many men is, "But my sister wouldnt be in that situation." Logic goes like this: My sister is a good woman. What this other women or girl has done makes her a bad woman and therefore not deserving of care." We see it in DV situations, in sexual assault cases, in the discussion of the Epstein files. Listening to right wing spin take the position of laying blame at the feet of the minors made me enraged, "It's not like they were 8." and "She was old enough to no what she was doing." Notice how that argument only comes up when we want to shame a child who was a victim and not when discussing whether they can consent to abortion or should be forced into pregnancy.
“ If pregnancy is god’s will then so is you’re limp dick”, gotta love Bette Midler on viagra..
When I read this all I could think of was the movie "The Road to Wellville". It is supposed to be about the Kellog dynasty and I suppose it is, minimally. It is really about repressed sexual desire in both men and women. Almost died when the main female character went to a doctor for a womb massage and at long last experienced an organ. Hilarious movie if you like that kind of thing.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1435513/ see also Hysteria with Maggie Gyllenhaal.
"Ladies, you heard it hear, if a man doesn’t think your orgasm is a good investment…take your toys and go home.³ He’s not worth it."
I gave this advice to the teen girls I mentored. I always made sure to explain that it is okay not have sex too. That is a decision of individual readiness and I would add if you can't comnfortably talk abouty sex you arent ready to have it. But If you do have sex the expecatation should be reciprocity. I had some former students tell me that was sound advice. .
In a general sense, this attitude exists to this very day
Thanks for the exposure to this, it's important to know the history. It gives me context to the time we are in.
Have to ask: what would be an ideal definition of sex that doesn’t exclude what actually makes women orgasm as “foreplay”
Good sex? Fun sex? Sex that makes a woman leave a 10/10 review and want repeat experiences?
I mean a broader, more encompassing definition of sex. One that includes what’s typically considered 'foreplay' as a form of sex, rather than treating it as something optional or easily excluded
I can't lay out the exact definition, because for every one "good sex" is different. I will say broadly that if sex doesn't involved reciprocity, orgasms for everyone (unless there's some specific kink involved), communication, and ideally occasional laughter (because sex is ridiculous at least half the time) then it's not good sex.
You can’t have good sex without communication. Everyone involved needs to be able to express “I like this, not that” or “that’s not the bit of anatomy you think it is” without feeling embarrassed or worried that their partner is going to take it as a referendum on their sexual skills
That makes me think of this scene from Boy Meets World actually:
Topanga: You wanna go home and have pooky-pook?
Cory: No, Topanga. No pooky-pook.
Topanga: Why not?
Cory: Because, you're better at pooky-pook than I am, too.
(Season 7, Episode 13)
This devolves into a much larger argument, but at it’s core it’s a fight about two people who were never mature enough for sex or marriage in the first place, leading to resentment and absolutely no good sex for anyone.
I love that term, "Boston marriage," I have one in my second novel, and was disappointed to find that the period in history I'm writing about was prior to the term. Then I realized that it was better to just show the loving relationship, and the ways they skirt male opinion or use it against them was better without the term anyway. I do love the term, though. I'm from Boston, so I take a kind of pride in it.
Brava, you covered the waterfront in a most comprehensive style!